Florida Department of Transportation
Design Build Program
Evaluation
November 2004
Evaluation for July 1996 – June 2003
Produced by the Florida Department of Transportation
Project Management, Research & Development Office
605 Suwannee Street, MS 40
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................................... 3
OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................................... 3
TECHNIQUE................................................................................................................................................ 4
DESIGN- BUILD QUALITY ...................................................................................................................... 4
PROJECT SELECTION GUIDELINES ................................................................................................... 5
DESIGN-BUILD MAJOR ........................................................................................................................... 6
DESIGN-BUILD MINOR (STATUTORY CAP) ...................................................................................... 6
DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT FINDINGS ON ACTIVE PROJECTS: ................................................ 7
DESIGN- BUILD MAJOR .......................................................................................................................... 8
DESIGN-BUILD COST ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................... 8
DESIGN-BUILD TIME ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 8
DESIGN-BUILD VS. DESIGN-BID-BUILD PROJECTS ....................................................................... 9
QUALITY ASSURANCE ............................................................................................................................ 9
SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 10
PROJECT MANAGER ............................................................................................................................. 10
LESSONS LEARNED................................................................................................................................ 10
PROBLEM AREAS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN.............................................................. 11
SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................. 15
COMPLETED PROJECTS TABLE ........................................................................................................ 17
ii
Design-Build Contracting
BACKGROUND
The Design-Build technique was the first innovative contracting concept to be used in Florida.
It originated with the 1987 legislative statute authorizing the Department to experiment with a
$50 million pilot program. Resurfacing, bridge replacement, new construction, multi-lane new
construction, reconstruction, and fixed capital outlay and parking garages were all identified as
potential Design-Build projects. The use of the Design-Build concept opened up a new degree
of flexibility for innovations by both the design engineer and the construction contractor, while
allowing the project design to be tailored to the contractor’s strengths. In addition, Design-Build
contracting allowed the contractor to optimize his work force, equipment, and scheduling.
In 1995, the Florida Legislature authorized the Department to use the Design-Build process for
buildings, major bridges, and rail corridor projects. In 1996, this authority was further expanded
to include all project types as a part of the "innovative" practices package. The Department is
required to comply with the annual contracting monetary cap set by the statute for Innovative
Contracting.
In November 2001, the Florida Governor announced an economic stimulus initiative to
accelerate 63 road building projects with an estimated cost of $668 million. The legislation
authorized the Department of Transportation, until June 30, 2003, to combine right-of-way
services with the design and construction phases of any project awarded, except for a resurfacing
or minor bridge project. It also allows the Department to enter into Design-Build contracts prior
to obtaining title to all necessary right of ways. However, construction activities are prohibited
on any portion of a project for which the department has not obtained title. These changes allow
construction to begin much sooner than originally scheduled.
OBJECTIVES
There are three main objectives to Design-Build:
Time: Compared to traditional contract procurement, time is saved when the project
construction begins during design. Design-Build assigns the design and construction to one firm,
and where possible, allows construction to begin before plans are complete. This reduces
administrative costs and effort.
Responsibility: Design-Build provides a single point of responsibility for quality, cost and
schedule from design through construction. This reduces change orders and claims due to errors
and omissions.
Innovation: Design-Build allows the contractor maximum flexibility to choose innovative
designs, materials and construction techniques.
3
TECHNIQUE
Design-Build combines the design and construction phases of a project into a single contract.
The FDOT establishes the design criteria package from which the prospective bidders then
develop design proposals that optimize their construction abilities. These projects allow the
contractor to participate in the design in an effort to reduce costs and expedite construction. The
submitted proposals are rated by a FDOT Technical Review Committee on factors such as
design quality, timeliness, warranties, coordination, aesthetics, maintainability, construction
methods, management capability, environmental sensitivity, MOT, maintenance, etc.
By allowing the contractor to optimize his or her workforce, equipment, and scheduling, the
Design-Build concept opens up a new degree of flexibility for innovation. However, along with
the increased flexibility, the contractor must also assume greater responsibility for long-term
performance through the provision of a multi-year guarantee/warranty. This method helps focus
the contractor and designers on working together as a team to accomplish the project goals and
provide a quality, durable product.
Once a project has been identified to advance as a Design-Build project, the Department’s
Project Manager is responsible for coordinating the procurement of Design-Build services and
overseeing the engineering/inspection and construction of the project. It takes a multi-disciplined
team to develop the RFP that includes the design and construction criteria, evaluating the letters
of interest, grading the proposals, and overseeing the design, construction and CEI of the project.
After the short-listed firms for the design-build project are selected, a pre-bid meeting is held to
discuss and clarify any project concerns. This provides a forum for all concerned parties to
clarify the scope of service and for the Design-Build firms to ask questions.
There are two types of Design-Build bidding that are used. (1) Low Bid – for scopes that are
precise and clearly defined, and (2) Adjusted Score – for scopes where the end results are well
defined, but the means and methods and design options are not specified and design options are
available to the bidder.
From the contracting agency’s perspective, the potential time savings are a significant benefit.
Since design and construction are performed through one procurement process, construction can
begin before all design details are finalized. Time to complete a project can be shortened by
overlapping design and construction with reduced administrative costs. Also, because both
design and construction are performed under the same contract, claims for design efforts or
construction delays due to redesign are not allowed, and the potential for other types of claims is
greatly reduced.
DESIGN- BUILD QUALITY
The overall quality of Design-Build projects is equal to that of design-bid-build projects.
Design-Build projects are built to the same construction specifications, using the same
construction and inspection methods as design-bid-build projects. If an item of work on the
project is not covered by the Department’s Standard Specifications and implemented
modifications, an individually signed and sealed Technical Special Provision is required. These
are discussed at the pre-bid meeting prior to the information cut-off date. Also, any requests for
a design variance or design exception must be validated prior to the information cut-off date.
-4-
PROJECT SELECTION GUIDELINES
Design-Build contracting should be considered for projects with the following characteristics:
1.
Projects that demand an expedited schedule and can be completed
earlier.
2.
Projects that require minimum right-of-way acquisition and utility
relocation.
3.
Projects that can have a well-defined scope for all parties (design &
construction).
4.
Projects that have room for innovation in the design and/or construction
effort.
5.
Projects with low risk of unforeseen conditions.
6.
Projects with low possibility of significant change during all phases of
work.
7.
Projects with well-defined, non-complex environmental permitting
requirements.
Examples of projects that can be good Design-Build contracting candidates:
1.
Major Bridges
2.
Minor Bridges
3.
ITS (computer signalized traffic)
4.
Intersection Improvements (with known utilities)
5.
Buildings, office buildings, rest areas, welcome stations, pedestrian
overpasses (minor bridge), etc.
6.
Interstate Widening
7.
Rural Widening
8.
Fencing
9.
Landscaping
10.
Lighting
11.
Sidewalks
12.
Signing
13.
Signalization
14.
Guardrail
15.
Resurfacing
Examples of projects that may not be good Design-Build contracting candidates are listed below.
Use of Design-Build contracting on these types of projects requires written approval by the State
Roadway Design Engineer:
1.
Major bridge rehab/repair with significant unknowns
2.
Rehabilitation of movable bridges
-5-
3.
Urban construction/reconstruction with major utilities, major subsoil
problems, hazardous material, major right-of-way requirements,
complex environmental permitting requirements, or other major
unknowns
DESIGN-BUILD MAJOR
Major Design-Build contracts are allowed under Section 337.11(7), Florida Statutes. The
Legislature allows the use of Design-Build contracts to expedite the project implementation and
completion schedule of certain construction projects. Simply stated, Design-Build major projects
include bridges where the estimated cost for construction is $10 million and over, buildings, rail
corridor projects and limited access facilities.
Section 337.11(7), Florida Statutes provides the “Department may
combine the design and construction phases of a building, a major
bridge, or a rail corridor project into a single contract. Such contract is
referred to as a “Design-Build contract”.
These types of Design-Build contracts are NOT included in the $120 million statutory cap for
Design-Build projects.
Section 337.11(7), Florida Statutes further provides: “If the head of the
department determines it is in the best interests of the public, the
department may combine the right-of-way services and design and
construction phases of any project into a single contract, except for a
resurfacing or minor bridge project the right-of-way services and design
and construction phases of which may be combined under s. 337.025.
Such contract is referred to as a Design-Build contract.”
DESIGN-BUILD MINOR (Statutory Cap)
Design-Build Minor contracts are defined as any other transportation projects not previously
allowed under Section 337.11(7), Florida Statutes. This would exclude Design-Build Major
projects (buildings, major bridges, rail corridor projects and limited access facilities). DesignBuild Minor contracts are allowed under Section 337.025, Florida Statutes and are calculated in
the $120 million cap. Therefore, Design-Build Minor contracts must be submitted to and
approved by the Project Management, Research and Development Office for statutory
compliance.
-6-
DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT FINDINGS ON ACTIVE PROJECTS:
Thirty-nine (39) Design-Build projects were active as of June 30, 2003.
Active Projects by Work-Mix
Number
of
Projects
Work-Mix
Bid Amount
Bid Days
4
Add Lanes & Reconstruction
$109,489,961
3,274
6
Add Lanes & Rehab.
Pavement
$227,495,677
4,460
2
Bike Paths
$11,545,144
920
2
Add Thru Lanes
$63,142,344
1,050
4
Replace High Level Bridge
$301,248,000
5,282
2
Bridge - New
$27,295,600
1,644
2
Bridge-Repair/ Rehabilitation
$10,994,000
820
2
ITS
$11,289,926
955
2
Rest Area
$42,620,572
1,250
3
Resurfacing
$29,376,487
4,053
2
Misc. Construction
$3,851,900
766
1
Sidewalk
$14,811,268
641
1
Signalization
$1,016,599
280
1
Corridor Improvements
$2,834,866
300
1
Drainage Improvements
$10,977,000
260
1
Fencing
$4,160,892
340
1
Interchange (Major)
$62,150,000
1,095
1
Mill/Resurface
4,871,000
295
1
New Road Construction
$31,141,600
900
39
TOTALS
$970,312,836.00
28,585
7
DESIGN-BUILD COMPLETED PROJECTS
DESIGN- BUILD MAJOR
Design-Build Major is used throughout the Department for various phases of a construction
project. This includes Utility, Railroad or Other Agency1 phase types.
DESIGN-BUILD COST ANALYSIS
Thirty-three (33) Design-Build projects have been completed. The work mix on these contracts
varied from resurfacing projects and adding lanes to bridge replacement and ITS (Intelligent
Transportation System). The Official DOT estimate for these 33 projects was $162 million. The
amount bid was $135 million. The amount paid, was $137 million.
Resurfacing projects are the most successful Design-Build project work-mix according to the
Design-Build data in percentage of cost paid compared to the Official estimate. This type of
work-mix ranged from a cost under-run from 0% to -56% under the official estimate. The
average cost under-run is -35%. There were no projects over budget in this work-mix. Seven
resurfacing projects were completed for a total cost of $15 million; the Department estimate was
$22 million.
Pedestrian overpasses are another successful Design-Build project type. With five (5) completed
projects, the cost over-run is 1%. The Official DOT estimate for these projects was $8 million,
with a bid amount of $8,076,081 and a total pay-out of $8.1 million.
Bridge Replacement was used for three (3) projects for a cost over-run of 5%. The Official
estimate for these projects was $46,507,578, with a final amount paid of $48,215,701.
Six of the projects had a cost over-run of 10% or higher. This was due to the work being
changed or modified on the projects, rework or design changes. To have a successful project, it
is imperative to have a well-defined scope of services.
Every significant cost and time over-run in Design-Build contracts has been due to a change or
omission in the project’s scope of services. The greatest cost increase (95%) was on a project
where a microwave tower had to be relocated at an I-75 interchange. This relocation was
unforeseen in the original scope, resulting in a cost over-run of $1 million.
A 93% cost over-run occurred on a project in Volusia County for traffic control devices. A
supplemental agreement was executed to add a fiber-optic connection where cable was nonexistent. Camera format changes were made (from still photos to video) and additional computer
equipment was needed. This resulted in a time extension of 189 days.
On a Skyway Video Modification project, the cost over-run was 66%. The project scope was
written prior to 9-11 and, once the project was under way, was modified to address and meet
national security issues.
DESIGN-BUILD TIME ANALYSIS
The total number of days (12,708) to complete Design-Build contracts was 18% greater than the
total official days (10,877) estimated by the Department. Of the 33 completed Design-Build
1
Other Agency Phase type is when the Department contracts with another governmental agency for
services provided. The Department is responsible for administering and oversight of the project.
-8-
projects, eleven projects were on-time or under-the-time bid. Of the projects that were on or
under-time bid, five were resurfacing projects, with the greatest time savings being on bridge
replacement and bridge rehabilitation projects.
The greatest time over-run was 118% on an Access Improvement Project. This was due to
District specific requirements that were not included in the original scope of services. This
resulted in re-work and design changes.
DESIGN-BUILD VS. DESIGN-BID-BUILD PROJECTS
To compare Design-Build to Design-Bid-Build projects, seven resurfacing projects were
randomly selected. The construction costs of these projects were $12 million. After researching
the design cost, these projects were calculated to be $2 million for a combined cost of $14
million. The construction bid days was 1,016 and actual days used was 1,256. The combined
design time for each of these projects was 4,736, for a total time for the traditional design-bidbuild projects of 5,992 days.
Resurfacing projects that were constructed using the Design-Build method took a total of 1,452
days to complete. It is apparent that the true savings in Design-Build is in the time savings.
Districts like using Design-Build contracting because of the savings and efficiencies it provides.
In emergency situations, Design-Build affords them the flexibility to get the job done quickly.
In traditional Design-Bid-Build projects, the designer can be faced with an adversarial
relationship with construction. If questions arise by construction, the designer may feel like they
have to defend the design. When working in a Design-Build partnership situation, the design and
construction firms have a stake in the successful outcome of the project. With a Design-Build
contract, issues within the contract are not the owner’s issues, which is a significant benefit of
this type of contracting method. Communication lines are more open between the Design,
Construction and the Department using Design-Build.
With Design-Build, it is very important to have a clearly-defined scope that encompasses all
disciplines and activities. Good project selection guidelines are important too. Risk should be
the contractual responsibility of the party best able to manage that risk.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
To insure the Design-Build process as required by Guidelines, Specifications, etc., are being
followed, the State Construction Office evaluated experiences and has initiated changes to the
Design-Build process. A field review was done on the following indicators:
a. RFP’s
b. Proposal Evaluations
c. Selection Process
d. Technical Specifications/Specifications
e. Plans/Shop Drawing
f. Testing methods/records
g. Original Cost/Time vs. Final Cost/Time
A letter from the Review Team showing findings and corrective recommendations will be sent
to FHWA/State Construction Engineer/District Construction Engineer within two weeks after
the review.
-9-
Since its implementation in 1996, the use of the Design-Build concept has been used with many
ideas being tried. A decrease of time over-runs are being realized and many more projects are
being let thru this contracting process.
SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS
Several factors are critical to the success of a Design-Build project. The most important factor is
having a well-defined scope. Most cost over-runs on Design-Build projects stemmed from
having to extend or change the scope of service. It is imperative that all parties share an
understanding of the scope and what is expected. Communication between the Department and
the Design-Build firm is essential. Collaboration between offices during scope development is
critical and should be mandatory.
PROJECT MANAGER
A Project Manager must be able to lead the Design-Build team and make decisions that are in
the best interests of the project as well as of the owner. This individual must be the liaison
between design and construction through completion of the contract and must promote a “team”
approach for the project and monitor project progress. The Project Manager must stay involved,
be knowledgeable about the project, perform periodic jobsite visits and be pro-active when
dealing with issues that may arise. This is a key position that requires many skills that cross a
broad range of disciplines.
LESSONS LEARNED
The most important lesson learned, from a District perspective, is that there needs to be a single
point of responsibility in charge. This person, usually the Project Manager, must be responsible
and accountable, with the ability and motivation to make decisions based on what is best for the
project and owner.
If the Design-Build firm has the flexibility to modify the preliminary (30%) design and still meet
the scope and requirements of the RFP without sacrificing safety and life cost of the final
product, the Department receives an equal or better end result. Further, if these modifications
result in no additional cost or increase in time, then this is a win-win situation for all parties
involved. The Design-Build firm must build what they propose in their Technical Proposal. They
have the right to make adjustments if approved by the Department.
Everyone takes a more pro-active role in the success of the project, from the District Consultant
Project Manager to the subcontractors. Because everyone has a stake in the success of the
project, a sense of ownership prevails.
Reviews of some recent Design-Build projects indicate that an emphasis on the following issues
may help ensure a successful Design-Build project:
•
Pick the right project for Design-Build. Projects must be well-defined.
•
Pick the right team. The selection process must be carefully structured
to select the best qualified team.
•
Prepare a clear and concise request for proposal. The scope must cover
all desired work requirements.
•
Allow for contingencies to cover unforeseen conditions.
- 10 -
•
Submit adequate component plans sets.
•
Allow adequate time for plan reviews.
•
Process all information and decisions through the FDOT Project
Manager.
•
Recognize that communications is key. Frequent project meetings
with the FDOT Project Manager, the contractor, designer, CEI and
other interested parties are necessary to the success of the project.
•
Document all actions and decisions.
Problem Areas and Corrective Action Taken
1.
Who at FDOT is responsible for making sure all the conditions of the FHWA SEP-14
approval are being fulfilled? What reporting processes are in place to support this
effort?
Corrective Action: Responsibility for making sure the FHWA requirements are fulfilled:
The Project Management, Research & Development (PMRD) Office is responsible for policies,
procedures, program oversight and reporting. The State Construction Engineer is the designated
individual responsible for ensuring that the Department complies with FHWA requirements for
Specifications, Scopes of Service, Request for Proposals (RFP), Guidelines, Procedures, Task
Team Support, Reports, etc. The Districts are held responsible for ensuring the required
procedures, documentation, etc., are followed in accordance with the FHWA requirements and
established Design-Build policies. Any questions, clarifications, etc., should be sent to the State
Construction Office, which will coordinate with appropriate offices to ensure that such are acted
upon in a timely manner.
2.
All federal-aid Design-Build projects must meet the requirements as proposed in the
draft rule published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2001. If the Design-Build
firm is performing CEI or acquiring right-of-way, all projects must use the same
standard scopes developed by the Central Office. The standard scopes are to be
approved by the FHWA before released to the Districts for incorporation into the
RFPs. What process does FDOT have in place to make sure the standard scopes are
being utilized?
Corrective Action: Request for Proposals (RFP): The Districts shall use the approved RFP as
shown on the Construction Office web page. The address is:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/Design%20Build/Design-Build.htm. An electronic copy
of the RFP, with changes identified clearly, shall be submitted to the State Construction Office
on all projects for review and approval prior to submittal to the short listed firms. The intent of
the State Construction Office’s review is to assure these documents are in conformance with the
commitments made to FHWA. FHWA receives the electronic copy on all Federal Aid Oversight
Projects for review and approval. At FHWA’s request, a minimum of two weeks is scheduled for
their review and approval of the RFP.
3.
Application to Oversight or Exempt Projects: These 12 Design-Build conditions apply
to all federal-aid projects, not just those with the FHWA oversight. The only difference
is oversight projects are reviewed and approved by the FHWA on a project-by-project
basis; exempt projects are reviewed on a program basis. For projects exempt from the
- 11 -
FHWA’s project level oversight, the state is required, in accordance with the approved
Exemption Agreement, to assure exempt projects meet these conditions. A DesignBuild project is determined to be oversight by following the criteria contained in the
existing FHWA/FDOT Exemption Agreement; e.g. Interstate Federal-aid projects over
$1 million in construction costs, excluding 3R work. What process does FDOT have in
place to make sure “exempt” projects abide by these conditions?
Corrective Action: Initial Federal Authorization Request: On FHWA Oversight Projects the
District Federal Aid Coordinators submit the initial federal authorization request to the Federal
Aid Office after the RFP has been sent to FHWA for review. The Federal Aid Office then
submits the authorization request to FHWA, and FHWA approves it after completion of their
RFP review. On all federally funded Design-Build projects, whether exempt from federal
oversight or not, the federal authorization must be approved by FHWA before the RFP and
Design/Construction Criteria Package is published or mailed. It is the Project Manager’s
responsibility to coordinate with the District’s Federal Aid Coordinator in order to comply with
the Federal Aid Technical Bulletins 02-3 and 02-4 for all Federally funded (or potentially
Federally funded projects) when requesting federal authorization. These technical bulletins are
attached to this letter and can also be found at the following address:
http://ombnet.dot.state.fl.us/financialplanningoffice/federal/fedtech/Federal_Aid_Technical_Bull
etin_2002.pdf
4.
RFP Approval/Project Authorization /Concurrence-in-Award: For Federal-aid
oversight projects, a key step in the Design-Build process is the FHWA’s approval of
the RFP document. Once approved by the FHWA, the RFP can be released by the
State and federal-aid project funds can be authorized for project advancement. The
FHWA’s concurrence-in-award is required on all federal-aid oversight projects. The
concurrence- in- award package shall include a summary of the adjusted scores, the
results of the question and answer session by the three short listed firms, and the
Department’s selection committee’s decision for award of the contract. No
concurrence-in-award requests have been submitted for the Design-Build projects.
What will FDOT do to correct this situation and what will the process be for
concurrence-in-award submittals?
Corrective Action: Concurrence-in-Award process: The Summary of Adjusted Scores
(Technical Score, Bid Proposal Amount), Proposed Contract Time, DBE Commitment, and the
Department’s Selection Committee decision for award (final rankings) is posted on the
Procurement Office’s web page for use by FHWA. The address is:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/procurement/results/desnbid_results.htm. At the time of this
posting the District Professional Services Unit will email FHWA to direct their attention to the
website for the selection results and request concurrence in the award. FHWA shall reply via
email to the District Professional Services Unit and the Project Manager indicating their
concurrence in the award. Once the concurrence-in-award is obtained, the District Professional
Services Unit executes the contract. The Project Manager then notifies the District Federal Aid
Coordinator of the awarded amount (along with a copy of FHWA’s concurrence e-mail) and
requests a modification be processed to the federal authorization to adjust the federal
authorization to the awarded amount.
5.
Construction Engineering Inspection (CEI): For all Federal-aid projects, if the CEI is
hired by the Design-Build firm, the FDOT Central Office, in consultation with our
office, has developed two scope documents that must be included in the RFPs. One is
- 12 -
referred to as the Scope for Construction CEI, which is the consultant hired by the
Design-Build firm. The other is referred to as the Oversight CEI, which is the
consultant hired by the Department. The use of an Oversight CEI is required to enable
the Department to meet the requirements of the FHWA’s quality assurance regulation
23 CFR, part 637.
The scope for the Oversight CEI as developed by the Central Office must be approved
by the FHWA prior to release to the Districts. The Districts are allowed to make minor
modifications to the standard scope (such as for sampling and testing frequency) to fit
project specific conditions. In addition, for Federal-aid oversight projects the
consultant agreement used to hire the Oversight Consultant (scope of services RFP and
staff hour estimate) must be reviewed and approved by the FHWA per the normal
consultant agreement process in the FDOT procedure 375-030-002. What process does
FDOT have in place to make sure the standard scopes are being utilized with only
minor revisions?
Corrective Action: Scope of Services: The Districts shall use the approved Design-Build CEI
and Oversight CEI Scopes as shown on the Construction web page. The address is:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/Design%20Build/Design-Build.htm. An electronic copy
of the Scope of Services, with changes identified clearly, is submitted to the State Construction
Office on all projects for review and approval prior to submittal to the short listed firms. The
intent of the State Construction Office’s review is to assure that these documents are in general
conformance with the commitments made to FHWA. FHWA also receives the electronic copy
on all Federal-Aid Oversight Projects and requests a minimum of two weeks to schedule their
review and approval.
Testing: The Department or its representative will perform verification and resolution testing
services in accordance with the latest Specifications. On all Federal-Aid Projects, the
Department or its representative shall perform verification sampling and testing on-site as well
as off-site locations such as pre-stress plants, batch plants, structural steel fabrication plants, etc.
6.
Warranties: For projects on the National Highway System (NHS) warranties are
allowed provided they meet the requirements of existing regulations in 23 CFR 635.413
(which limits the application of warranties to specific products or construction features
as approved by FHWA). For non-NHS projects, the states can continue to use their
own warranty procedures. Due to the reduced inspection frequency proposed in the
standard Oversight CEI scope developed by the Construction Office, warranties for
asphalt, concrete and other specific work items will be required by the FHWA to offset
the risk associated with the reduced level of inspection.
Corrective Action: Warranty/Guarantee Specifications: The Districts were issued the
following directions:
The following warranty/guarantee specifications are included in all future Design-Build
contracts:
Section 5-14, Contractor Guaranteed Project Features - The Districts identify the project features
to be guaranteed in the RFP. The standardized RFP posted on the State Construction Office
website includes the most common features. In any case, Asphalt Pavement needs to be listed as
one of the project features if Section 338 is not part of the RFP and asphalt pavement is part of
the contract.
- 13 -
Section 338, Value-Added Asphalt Pavement - This specification can only be included upon
approval by the State Construction Office. FDOT is currently working with the industry on a 3year specification which, when finalized, will be part of all future Design-Build contracts.
Section 355, Value-Added Portland Cement Concrete Pavement - This specification is included
on contracts that include Portland Cement Concrete Pavement.
Section 410, Value-Added Structural Components - This specification is included on contracts
that involve construction of these components.
7.
Value Engineering and Use of Value Engineering Change Proposals (VECP's):
Consistent with our current regulations in 23 CFR 627, a value engineering analysis is
required of all Federal-aid projects estimated to cost over $25 million. This study can
be performed by the State, its consultant, or be a requirement in the RFP for the
Design-Build firm to perform. VECP clauses are allowed, but not required for DesignBuild projects. A VECP submitted to the FHWA for a Federal-aid project must provide
an equal or better product at less cost. What process does FDOT have in place to
make sure the necessary VE Studies are being conducted and how are these studies
being reported?
Corrective Action: Value Engineering (VE): All projects with an estimated cost of $20
million or more have a minimum of one VE study conducted prior to or during the development
of the Design and Construction Criteria. This estimated cost shall include all costs associated
with the project, including but not limited to design, right-of-way, construction, and
administrative costs.
8.
Design variances are being granted which would normally not be granted on
conventional projects, saving Design-Build firm money and time.
Corrective Action: Design Variances/Exceptions Requirements: The Department does not
consider a deviation from the design criteria or our specifications as an "innovation." Therefore,
a design variance or exception is not considered innovative. If a short listed firm requests a
variance or exception during the technical proposal phase, it must be discussed during the prebid meeting or prior to the information cut-off date as identified in the RFP. Such
variance/exception must be approved or disapproved prior to the information cut-off date.
Design exceptions require approval by the State Roadway Design Office and FHWA (for
oversight projects). This requires extensive coordination in a short time frame. All such
variances/exceptions must be shared with all short listed firms prior to the information cut-off
date (final information cut-off date shown in RFP). Any design variances/exceptions submitted
by the short listed firm after letting is considered as a Value Engineering Change Proposal.
It is highly encouraged that any specific design variances/exceptions be included in the RFP
after the necessary approvals have been obtained. The Districts, at their option, can specifically
prohibit, in the RFP, submission of such variances/exceptions after letting.
Designers may feel this change (sharing variance/exceptions during the proposal phase with all
parties) limits their innovation, but as stated above, the Department does not consider this as
- 14 -
innovation. The Department wants to encourage innovation through the contractor's means and
methods and not by deviating from Design Standards.
9.
The means by which the Schedule of Values is reviewed and approved by the Districts
and the Monthly Estimates are being paid are leading to front- loading and overpayment.
Corrective Action: Schedule of Values: The Districts shall adhere to the direction provided in
instructions distributed via email dated 03/31/2003. An example of a typical Schedule of Values
can be found at http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/Design%20Build/Design-Build.htm
for the District’s use and modified as necessary.
10.
Many required submittals on FHWA Oversight projects are not being submitted.
Corrective Action: Specifications, Shop Drawing and Plan Requirements: The Districts shall
adhere to the direction provided in the Construction Memorandum No. 21-02 dated 10-07-02.
The address is: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/memos/2002/dce21-02.pdf. The
District Specifications Engineer shall be included in the development and inclusion of the D-B
Division I Specifications in the RFP. Any changes to the D-B Division I Specifications shall be
reviewed and approved by the State Specifications Office, the State Construction Office and
FHWA prior to advertisement. Furthermore, the District Specification Engineer shall review
and approve the Specification Package submitted by the D-B firm.
Pavement Design and Typical Section: The Design and Construction Criteria package shall
include the minimum pavement design and typical section criteria. For the pavement design, it
should typically include the minimum design period, minimum ESALs, minimum design
reliability factors, roadbed resilient modulus, minimum structural asphalt thickness, cross slope
and the need for Modified Binder. For resurfacing design, a minimum milling depth and whether
an ARMI layer is required should also be included in the criteria. For the typical section design,
identify the minimum lane widths, shoulder widths, median widths, cross slope, and front slope
requirements. The Pavement Coring and Evaluation should be provided with the criteria.
SUMMARY
This report documents the results of 33 completed projects and an additional 39 on-going
projects. An evaluation of these projects showed time savings in project delivery. Cost
comparisons between design-bid-build projects and Design-Build projects are difficult as no two
projects are alike. However, seven resurfacing projects completed using Design-Build at a cost
of $14.6M was significantly less than the Official Estimate of $21.8M.
As with any contracting process, changes in the scope of work post-award produced the most
dramatic effect on time and cost increases. Clearly-defined scopes of work are essential to
minimize post-award contract changes.
Quality Control/ Quality Assurance have not been a significant issue with Design-Build. As
reported, the same systems are in place for material testing and acceptance as for Design-BidBuild. In addition, warranty/guarantee provisions have been included to provide additional
assurance for major project components.
- 15 -
Design-Build has proven to be an effective contracting methodology. It is codified as a
standard procurement process at FDOT. Process improvements have been initiated since the
program beginning and, like any process, will continue to be refined based on lessons learned.
- 16 -
COMPLETED PROJECTS TABLE
Dist.
FM No.
Contract
No.
1
197387-2
E1B79
1
410918-1
E1C41
3
3
3
3
218754-1
219049-1
218648-1
219371-1
17121
E3959
E3A48
E3980
3
4
4
5
5
222766-1
228843-1
231531-1
240957-1
404121-1
E3720
E4989
E4A74
E5B19
E5E56
5
5
242345-1
239472-1
E5E01
E5B22
5
5
405515-1
410725-1
E5F06
E5F41
5
5
5
406329-1
411882-1
238407-1
E5E65
E5F35
E5C86
5
242301-1
E5C31
5
6
7
7
7
240948-2
251624
256408-1
257182-1
256353-1
E5F13
BC-212
E-7819
E7A31
E7A03
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
405563-1
406557-1
408460-2
403266-1
410531-1
408671-1
407950-1
232205-1
406709-1
E7A34
E7A11
E7999
20693
E7998
E7A13
E8C31
E8B54
E8C36
Project Description
& Work Mix
SR 60 Peace Creek at Bridge # 160132 &
160044-Replace Low Level Bridge
I-75 at Bee Ridge Br. 170145 & 170146repair/rehab
Ochlockonee Bay Br. # 490920-Replace
med level Br
SR 22-Resurfacing
SR 10-Weigh Station
SR 75-Welcome Station
Blackwater River Br. 580061 & 77 -Br.
Replacement- Emergency Funds Hurricane
SR 76-Misc Construction
I-75 Interchange
Pedestrian Overpass-SR 483
SR 5-Resurfacing
Pedestrian Overpass-I-95 North of Old
Kings Rd
Pedestrian Overpass-SR 15/600
Add Lanes & rehab pvmnt-I-4 auxiliary
lanes
ITS Surveillance System-SR 436
I-75 Panasoffkee Br. 180039 & 180940Widen
I-95 Safety Project
SR 50 Resurfacing
Pedestrian Overpass-Fay Blvd
Traffic Control Devices System-Volusia
Co.
ITS Surveillance System-CCTV Cameras
Resurface/Repave-US 98
SR 44 Resurfacing
SR 52 Widen/resurface exist lanes
Pedestrian Overpass-Upper Tampa Bay
Trail
Add right turn lane-Fletcher Ave
I-75 Widen/resurface exist lanes
ITS Freeway Management System-I-275
Access Improvement-US 19
Skyway Video from Modification
Resurfacing-Lake Co.
Resurfacing-Broward Co.
Boca Raton Toll Data Center
TOTALS
DOT
Estimate
Bid
Amount
Present
Amount
Amount
Paid
% Cost
Overrun
Bid
Days
Present
Days
Days
Used
% Days
Overrun
(Present)
% Days
Overrun
(Actual)
$3,862,568
$3,865,690
$3,865,690
$4,050,069
0%
281
281
205
0%
-27%
$1,577,507
$1,494,000
$1,558,374
$1,577,507
4%
86
86
58
0%
-33%
$12,210,000
$1,964,000
$3,207,000
$5,876,000
$12,210,000
$1,482,377
$2,906,170
$5,865,805
$11,729,096
$1,482,377
$2,906,170
$5,910,259
$11,729,096
$1,482,377
$2,542,042
$5,910,259
-4%
0%
0%
1%
509
100
421
542
541
100
570
551
536
100
742
551
6%
0%
35%
2%
5%
0%
76%
2%
$30,435,010
$2,500,000
$1,095,000
$903,743
$5,167,035
$30,435,010
$2,181,000
$2,047,000
$1,123,506
$3,682,564
$33,036,536
$2,407,170
$3,983,715
$1,093,031
$3,682,564
$33,036,536
$2,407,170
$3,983,715
$1,123,506
$3,673,344
9%
10%
95%
-3%
0%
627
730
730
275
365
687
801
730
302
411
687
801
698
302
408
10%
10%
0%
10%
13%
10%
10%
-4%
10%
12%
$3,250,000
$1,619,072
$2,627,227
$2,132,804
$2,631,435
$2,147,542
$2,631,435
$2,147,541
1%
1%
340
320
452
463
451
463
33%
45%
33%
45%
$18,851,000
$1,815,000
$13,960,000
$1,583,928
$14,086,193
$1,603,299
$13,977,681
$1,436,291
1%
1%
400
270
490
315
501
295
23%
17%
25%
9%
$33,302,000
$2,540,000
$1,167,100
$19,277,000
$2,162,387
$636,186
$19,610,957
$2,232,659
$804,186
$19,512,546
$2,204,411
$805,606
2%
3%
26%
600
230
180
617
361
180
555
367
180
3%
57%
0%
-8%
60%
0%
$1,272,467
$972,000
$978,600
$978,600
1%
240
255
255
6%
6%
$667,677
$500,000
$361,404
$3,666,667
$998,999
$667,677
$695,819
$361,275
$3,666,667
$998,999
$1,287,878
$695,819
$360,275
$3,666,667
$1,098,038
$1,287,878
$695,819
$360,103
$278,585
$1,019,738
93%
0%
0%
0%
0%
375
275
150
235
215
571
337
150
288
215
543
337
149
288
215
52%
23%
0%
23%
0%
45%
23%
-1%
23%
0%
$1,220,544
$423,000
$2,724,204
$1,480,810
$4,925,280
$770,118
$1,018,685
$8,474,400
$2,800,000
$162,646,290
$1,220,544
$423,000
$2,126,447
$1,345,600
$4,925,280
$770,118
$729,000
$3,721,723
$2,795,095
17
$135,091,898
$1,270,494
$446,094
$2,248,784
$1,427,681
$5,377,756
$1,279,777
$729,000
$3,910,773
$3,602,033
$143,150,922
$1,220,543
$220,594
$2,246,792
$1,423,421
$5,306,306
$1,238,148
$725,743
$3,910,773
$3,602,033
$137,169,077
4%
5%
6%
6%
9%
66%
0%
5%
29%
6%
180
150
240
453
240
270
98
210
540
10877
281
150
275
453
519
406
98
270
623
12829
281
150
275
435
524
406
98
229
623
12708
56%
0%
15%
0%
116%
50%
0%
29%
15%
18%
56%
0%
15%
-4%
118%
50%
0%
9%
15%
17%